Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on March 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Order. We are the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Today, we are holding our sixth meeting.

We have some witnesses, and I am anxious to turn to them, but just before we do that, there was an item of housekeeping business that Mr. Marston alerted me to earlier.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday, some Tibetan folks were going around lobbying various MPs. I presume some of the other MPs from the committee may well have been lobbied. So I'm just giving notice that I'll be moving a motion at the next meeting.

Did you want me to read it, or just hold it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

In the interest of time, I wonder if you'd be prepared to hold it.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That's not a problem. We'll have translated copies ready for our next meeting. It's regarding 11 prisoners, and asking our government to intercede.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

This is something I had some involvement in—at least a version of this—a few years ago. It was very effective.

I congratulate you, Mr. Marston, on bringing it up. I'm not supposed to editorialize, but I just did.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We have a second piece of housekeeping. Our clerk will now distribute to each of you an operational budget request, asking for your approval.

Our clerk will now speak to this.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Roger Préfontaine]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is an operational budget for our subcommittee. It provides for witness expenses. I've estimated that we'll possibly have 25 witnesses, at an average of $1,200 each. This is for airfare, accommodation, etc.

The subcommittee would need to approve this, and then we would have to submit it to the main committee. However, we don't need to go the Liaison Committee with it, because it's under $40,000.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Ms. Thaï Thi Lac, you have the floor.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

These three videoconferences, are they for people who cannot travel?

[The Clerk]

It is just an option in case the subcommittee chooses to hear people by videoconference. One of the reasons we are in this room this morning, for example, is that, to start with, Human Rights Watch had asked to testify by videoconference. As it turned out, the organization decided to send Mr. Stork. This room is set up for videoconferences, but we have none scheduled. It is just in case we decided to proceed in that way.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I have nothing against videoconferences, but we know that witnesses who come in person often enjoy meeting the various parties and presenting their points of view. It also gives us the opportunity to make ourselves aware of topics outside the work of the committee. That is why I asked. Personally, I prefer hearing testimony in person so that the witnesses can meet other members of our respective parties and give us more information on the matters the committee is dealing with.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'll be brief, because I know we have the witnesses to hear.

If there are any exceptional circumstances in the future, we could always ask for additional funding, if it's needed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That is correct.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

That's fine.

With that, I'd like to move approval of the budget.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Just on a point of information, did I hear that if it's below $40,000, it doesn't have to go to the Liaison Committee? Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Yes, it's correct.

I think that deals with all of our housekeeping items and allows us to turn to our witnesses. We have three very distinguished witnesses. Normally we say that our witnesses need no introduction and then we give lengthy introductions. I actually won't do that, because these would have to be very lengthy introductions, as our witnesses are distinguished individuals.

Keith Rimstad is here from Amnesty International. Joe Stork is the deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa at Human Rights Watch. And Jared Genser is at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he is a lecturer in law.

Normally what we do is that we allow 10 minutes for each witness. This is a consensual committee, meaning that we don't enforce these things strictly, but if you go over that time, it starts creating problems in terms of our questions and answers.

I would invite one of you to start, and then we'll just go from there. It's at your discretion who starts.

[Jared Genser, Lecturer in Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School]

I will begin.

Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, some two years ago I appeared before you to express my deep and abiding concern about the serious situation of human rights in Iran. Unfortunately, the already poor record of the theocratic regime has only worsened since then.

Not only does the Government of Iran pose a grave threat to those who run afoul of its authoritarian dictates domestically, but the international community, and increasingly its own neighbours in the region, are also concerned about its influence. Today I would like to highlight a number of my particular observations and then make several recommendations for consideration by your committee about specific actions the Government of Canada might take to address these important human rights issues.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, the population of which numbers some 70 million, has a constitutional and theocratic form of government dominated by the Shia Muslim clergy, which imposes its fundamentalist and conservative view of Islam upon its populace. At the same time, it has also agreed to be bound by five major international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

These treaties do not only guarantee specific rights for Iranian citizens. They also require the Government of Iran, in many instances, to bring its domestic law into compliance with these international law obligations. The first four of these five treaties oblige the Government of Iran to cooperate with treaty monitoring bodies with regard to its adherence to these obligations.

Nevertheless, over the last few decades, human rights groups, governments, and various organs of the United Nations have repeatedly expressed profound concern about the Government of Iran's activities, including, but not limited to, the following issues: execution of numerous persons--the estimated number of which, according to reports since the Islamic revolution, is more than 100,000--including those convicted as juveniles, after unfair trials; draconian punishment sanctioned by government, including death by stoning, amputation, and flogging; arbitrary arrests and extended incommunicado detention of political prisoners; violence, legal, and economic discrimination against women, ethnic and religious minorities, and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people; severe restrictions of civil liberties such as freedom of speech, expression, assembly, association, religion, movement, and privacy; and severe restriction of workers' rights, including the right to organize and bargain collectively.

Beyond these broad classes of abuses internally, the Government of Iran is a destabilizing force in the broader Middle East, especially through its role as a major funder and supporter of both Hezbollah and Hamas and their terrorist activities directed against civilian populations in Israel. The Government of Iran continues its incitement to genocide by comments of the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and their proxies calling for the State of Israel to be “wiped off the map”, stating that “There is only one solution to the Middle East problem, namely, the annihilation and destruction of the Jewish state”, or “If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide”.

Indeed, on March 4, 2009, just last Wednesday, the supreme leader, Khamenei, again referred to Israel as “a cancerous tumor”, exhorting attendees to “resistance”, his euphemism for violence as the only solution. And President Ahmadinejad repeated his Holocaust denial, stating “The story of the Holocaust, a nation without a homeland and a homeland without a nation...are the big lies of our era”.

These comments are all the more disconcerting because of Iran's persistent attempts to obtain nuclear technologies. So far, three rounds of UN Security Council sanctions have not stopped Iran's uranium enrichment program, which can be used for peaceful purposes, but also can be used for nuclear weapons.

In response to criticisms of its human rights record, the Government of Iran offers an unsatisfying response. As one illustration, Ibrahim Raisi, first deputy of Iran's judicial branch, recently stated:

Claims by America and some European countries about the violation of human rights by certain states are not aimed at defending human rights, and they are rather used to exert political pressure on Third World and developing countries, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Contrary to Mr. Raisi's assertion, however, there is not one standard for the west and one for the Third World and developing countries. On the contrary, all countries that choose to cede their sovereignty by signing on to international human rights treaties must be held to the same standard.

At the end of its prior session, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 63/191, its sixth consecutive annual resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran.

Beyond putting forward a lengthy and detailed set of abuses of the kinds referenced earlier in my testimony, I'd use such adjectives as “ongoing”, “systematic”, “persistent”, and “severe”. While these kinds of descriptions have little emotional impact, as they feel quite disconnected from reality, it is important not to forget that each of these individual human rights abuses by the Government of Iran has a human face. I'll give you three recent examples that are illustrative of the abuses.

On January 14, 2009, Aziz Samandari, a member of the Baha'i faith, was arrested as part of a raid on a number of Baha'i homes. Intelligence ministry officials confiscated books, materials, and photographs relating to his faith as well as computers and CDs. He is being held incommunicado in the notorious Evin Prison, and has been denied access to counsel. His only so-called crime is his belief in the Baha'i faith. His right to freedom of religion is guaranteed in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ICCPR, to which Iran is a party.

Two, on February 2, 2009, Alieh Eghdam Doust began serving a three-year prison sentence in Teheran for participating in a 2006 protest to demand more women's rights. Of those arrested during the rally, 14 people were charged with criminal offences, including “spreading propaganda against the ruling system”. Women are denied equal rights in marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance. Evidence given by a woman in court is only worth half that given by a man, and a girl under the age of 13 can be forced to marry a much older man if her father permits. Ms. Eghdam Doust's right to freedom of expression is guaranteed under article 19, and her rights to freedom of assembly and association are guaranteed under articles 21 and 22 of the ICCPR respectively.

Finally, on February 18, 2009, two Iranian women labour rights activists, Sousan Azadi and Shiva Kheirabadi, were flogged inside the central prison of Sanandaj, the capital of the Iranian Kurdistan province, after having been convicted of participating in May Day celebrations. Azadi received 70 lashes and Kheirabadi 15 lashes.

Iranian workers are struggling to form independent labour unions but face continuous state repression. The government and the judiciary have regularly abused the justice system to imprison and silence labour activists. These rights are guaranteed under article 22 of the ICCPR, and as a member of the International Labour Organization, Iran is obligated to respect and implement these rights.

While each of these small examples describes violations of the ICCPR, numerous violations of other treaties to which Iran is a party have also been documented. As I have explained, Iran's human rights record is among the worst of any country in the world today. Despite the impunity with which the Government of Iran operates, it is critical for countries such as Canada to keep solidarity with the victims, highlight their plight, and keep pressure on the Government of Iran to change its behaviour.

Specifically, I would recommend that the Government of Canada take the following three actions: first, use its membership in the UN Human Rights Council to raise the issue of Iran and to fight efforts by countries to eliminate country-specific resolutions and rapporteurs. In recent years, the former position of special representative for human rights in Iran, which was initially established in 1984 by the former Commissioner on Human Rights, was eliminated. I believe Canada should work multilaterally within the council to get that position restored. Such an action, if successful, will provide a mechanism for regularly spotlighting Iran's ongoing abuses in this UN organ.

Furthermore, the Government of Iran is up for review in the quadrennial universal periodic review process in early 2010. This will provide an important opportunity to question Iran about its failures to abide by its international human rights obligations. I hope and expect that the Government of Canada will do so vigorously.

Second, I believe the Government of Canada should address the Government of Iran's incitement to genocide against the state of Israel and the Jewish people in all appropriate fora. This includes a state-to-state complaint that the Government of Canada could file against the Government of Iran in the International Court of Justice, under article 9 of the genocide convention. As well, the UN Security Council could consider as a threat to international peace and security Iran's incitement to genocide under a chapter 7 referral to the International Criminal Court.

Third and finally, I believe the Government of Canada, in particular the Parliament, could provide further financial and moral support to Iranian-Canadian and Iranian groups that document and report on human rights abuses by the Iranian regime.

While the latter type of support may need to be provided quietly to avoid undermining their efforts inside Iran, there is a substantial need to document the abuses taking place inside the country so that they can be reported to the outside world. Helpfully, there are many brave Iranian human rights defenders willing to take the risks required to get the word out about the serious nature of the abuses taking place, and with that information, the international community is better positioned to act.

With persistence and by relying on the courageous spirit of the Iranian people, who clearly yearn to be free, it is my profound hope that the systematic abuses of the Iranian regime can be ended in our lifetime. While some might argue that this challenge is insurmountable, we know the outcome if we do not try. We have no choice but to persevere.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Mr. Genser. That was 10 minutes to the second. All committee members will want to take note of your precision and emulate it accordingly.

Now, who'd like to go next?

Mr. Stork, please.

[Joe Stork, Deputy Director, Middle East and North Africa, Human Rights Watch]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members, guests.

Human rights in Iran have been, for decades, extremely problematic, to put it mildly, under the government of President Ahmadinejad. Since his coming to power in the summer of 2005, they've grown particularly severe and are worsening by the year.

Typically, the government relies on national security as justification for silencing dissent. Indeed, 2008 saw a dramatic rise in the arrest of political activists, academics, and others for peacefully exercising a right to freedom of association and freedom of expression.

Let me talk first about the freedom of expression and assembly. Journalists and writers who covered issues dealing with ethnic minorities as well as civil society activities were particularly targeted. Iran's National Security Council gave newspapers numerous formal and informal warnings against covering these issues as well as more run-of-the-mill human rights violations and social protests, including the protests of workers. Many writers and intellectuals who have evaded imprisonment have in fact left the country or ceased to be critical. The government has fired dissenting university professors or forced them into early retirement, a trend that intensified in 2008. It has also recently begun banning politically active students from registering for upcoming semesters in college.

I would also just note that the government has been systematically blocking Iranian as well as foreign websites that carry political news and analysis.

In terms of freedom of association, the government has increased pressures on civil society organizations that call for advancing human rights and freedom of speech. For instance, the Center for Defenders of Human Rights, led by Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, as well as the Association of Iranian Journalists, have been targeted by the government.

On October 2 of last year, the official news agency warned Ebadi not to “misuse the tolerance of the government”. This is in the context of Ms. Ebadi receiving numerous death threats from unknown sources.

Government intelligence officials forced Mohammad Sadigh Kaboudvand, a journalist and human rights activist in the Kurdish area of Iran, to shut down his NGO, Defending the Human Rights in Kurdistan. He was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment in June for acting against national security and engaging in propaganda against the state.

I would like to touch on a point that Mr. Genser made in terms of the criminal justice and particularly the concern with the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders--that is, persons who committed the alleged offence when they were under the age of 18. Iranian law allows the death penalty for persons who have reached the age of puberty, which is defined as 15 for boys and nine for girls. In 2008 a known total of six persons were executed for crimes allegedly committed while under the age of 18, and since January 2005, Iran has been responsible for 26 of the 32 known executions of juvenile offenders worldwide.

These sentences, it should be noted, typically followed unfair trials, and the executions themselves often violated Iranian law, such as the failure to notify families and lawyers 48 hours in advance of the execution.

In terms of rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and association, I want to focus in particular on the situation faced by women's rights activists in Iran. In 2008 the government escalated its crackdown very significantly and visibly, subjecting dozens of women to arbitrary detention, travel bans, and harassment. Eight women activists were arrested in June, for instance, when they were commemorating an earlier meeting that had been broken up by police.

In October of last year, Esha Momeni, an Iranian-American student researching the women's rights movement in Iran, was arrested and held for three weeks in Evin prison. Security agents seized her computer as well as footage of interviews she had conducted with women's rights activists.

In the same month, October, security agents blocked Sussan Tahmasebi, a leader of the One Million Signatures Campaign for Equality, from boarding a plane and confiscated her passport, all without charging her with any crime.

In September, the appeals court in Tehran upheld prison and lashing sentences against the two women's rights activists Mr. Genser mentioned.

The other groups of Iranians who have been targeted in particular by the government are ethnic and religious minorities. In Iran, they are subject to discrimination, and in some cases, persecution, particularly in the northwestern provinces of Kurdistan and Azerbaijan. The government restricts cultural and political activities by Azeri and Kurdish activists, including the operation of non-governmental organizations that focus on social issues. The government accuses them, typically, of siding with armed opposition groups and of acting against national security. While the Government of Iran, like any government, has the right and the obligation to suppress armed violence, typically, in the cases we've been able to look at, there is no evidence presented in the trials of these individuals to link them with such activities.

I should mention, in passing, that it is the case that Human Rights Watch has been unable to enter Iran for a number of years now to conduct research. If I can pre-empt my recommendations to the Government of Canada, I would certainly urge that in any public interventions the government is involved in and in the report of this committee, access for international human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and so forth, should certainly be on your agenda.

On the issue of religious minorities, such as the Baha’i, I know that you've already taken testimony from representatives of the Baha’i community. I don't think I could add anything except to say that it's a concern we very much share. I would also note that representatives, including clerics of the Sunni sect in Iran, have also been targeted for harassment, arrest, and so forth.

Finally, to link back to my urging on the issue of access for human rights activists and independent organizations, Iran, of course, has also not allowed any of the special mechanisms of the UN to come into Iran since the summer of 2005, when Mr. Ahmadinejad became president, despite an earlier commitment made by the Government of Iran when it issued an open invitation to all those mechanisms.

If I could, I'll very quickly highlight a couple of recommendations. First, and seconding Mr. Genser's recommendation, I think the government would be well-advised to continue to make the UN--both the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council--a venue for pushing Iranian human rights. The Government of Iran typically says that it doesn't care. I think it cares very much, in fact. Particularly when a coalition of states can be assembled that actually manages to pass the resolution, indeed they care. I also think it is extremely important to continue to push for the appointment of a special representative or a special rapporteur by the Human Rights Council to address the serious situation of ongoing, systematic violations in Iran.

Second, of course, is to make human rights issues part of the agenda of any meetings, any dialogue, and any diplomatic encounters Canada may have with the Government of Iran.

Third, in particular reference to the case of Zahra Kazemi, the Iranian-Canadian photojournalist who was killed in custody in 2003, which I know has been on the government's agenda ever since that time, focus on the individuals involved as well as on the Government of Iran as a whole for its responsibility. And consider steps such as taking out international arrest warrants for some of the individuals known to have been involved in the custody and death of Ms. Kazemi.

Finally, I have a general point. I think in addressing human rights in Iran, given the seriousness of the situation, it's extremely important that Canada do so, in whatever venue, particularly in the UN General Assembly and in the Human Rights Council and so forth, in the context of criticism and of taking human rights violations seriously elsewhere in the region as well; the Middle East and North Africa are my concern.

Criticism of Iran carries more weight, frankly, when it includes criticism of serious violations by other states in the region that may be on the opposite side of the political fence to Iran, whether they be Arab states or Israel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Again, our witness has been very concise in his timing.

We'll now go to our third witness.

Mr. Rimstad, please.

[Keith Rimstad, Campaigner, Amnesty International]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for having me present to the committee our concerns with regard to Iran.

Before I begin, I would like to just acknowledge that a member of our parliamentary co-group, Tarek Hassan, is here. You will probably see him in the future. I just want to make sure that he's identified.

Because my colleagues have covered much of the ground I was going to speak to, I'm going to try to avoid repetition by starting with an assessment of a situation that, particularly over the last four months in Iran, has become quite seriously worse. There seems to be a progression of human rights violations targeting particular groups and sectors in the society. This could be perceived as a lead-in to the upcoming elections in June of this year.

We have noted that, as of the beginning of this year, over 220 individuals had been arbitrarily arrested. These were political activists and other activists. We also noted that there had been actions, and I'll speak specifically to actions against students. In one particular case in January, when students were protesting Israel's attacks against Gaza, one would assume that the government would not be opposed to this, but they in fact were because it was an independent action by students. The police came in, broke up the demonstration, and arrested a number of the students.

So even though it's on an issue one would think the Government of Iran would be sympathetic to, they do act. That's specifically because any independent action in Iran by any part of civil society is seen to be a threat.

In terms of some of the areas of concern, I'll touch on the judicial system and the laws of Iran, which don't meet international standards by any stretch of the imagination. There is no independent judiciary. Many of the laws under the Iranian constitution are extremely vaguely worded. Such terms as “acting against state security”, “spreading lies”, “propaganda against the system”, “creating unease in the public mind”, “insulting the holy sanctities”, and “defamation of state officials” are often used to target members of Iran's religious ethnic minorities, as well as human rights and other civil society actors.

In the context of the kinds of punishment these people can face, it can range from a fine all the way up to the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances and how the laws are interpreted.

Many people who are detained arbitrarily are not acknowledged as being detained for long periods of time. In some cases, it's only at the point of the acting out of the sentence that people become aware of where they are.

Judges have wide discretion with regard to evidence in reaching a verdict. Sometimes they rely on poorly defined provisions termed “knowledge of the judge”.

The use of torture is widespread, and it's particularly used to extract information prior to formal charges or otherwise. Also, ill treatment as a form of judicial punishment, such as flogging or the use of amputation, is common.

Impunity for human rights violations is almost absolute. Amnesty's concerns go right back to the beginning of the Islamic Republic, particularly the period in 1988 when thousands of political prisoners were executed and prisons were cleared. These were people who were arrested in the early years of the Islamic Republic. Of course, in the case of Zahra Kazemi, although we did see some progress in that at least charges were filed against lower-level officials, the end result was that one person eventually faced court and he was found not guilty.

I would like to say at this point, highlighting recommendations from my colleague, Mr. Stork, that it's really important in the case of Canada.... And we do have this risk of many Canadian citizens of Iranian background who return home, who visit family, and who support family, and who can find themselves in difficulty, like Ms. Kazemi.

It's important that Parliament, as well as the government, take active action on their behalf to press the Iranian authorities to account for the conditions of these individuals and ensure they have access to consular officials. The Iranian authorities will often say that, because they are Iranian or dual citizens, they will not recognize the Canadian citizenship. I think it is important that you do press. The little progress we saw in Ms. Kazemi's case was due to the pressure placed on the Iranian authorities from this House and the government. It's really critically important that we continue to pursue that.

In terms of freedom of expression, the situation is becoming broader, and it's worsening. It affects not just newspapers and journalists; it also affects NGOs and anyone who regularly is seeking access to the Internet. Their Internet controls are severe. There are laws coming into place that will take effect and will limit the use of the Internet even further. I will touch on that in a few minutes.

In terms of the death penalty, I only want to say here that last year Amnesty recorded 346 executions, of which eight were juveniles. One other juvenile was executed recently this year, in January. This is a major problem. In fact, it goes against Iranian obligations internationally, and it is an issue we need to press.

On political cases where individuals are facing a potential death sentence, often they are accused of “enmity against God”. Therefore, it becomes very difficult for these individuals to present a defence.

On the issue of religious minorities, I think it's important to note that all religious minorities, even those that are accepted under Iranian constitution, are facing repression of various sorts. It depends on the context and the situation, but Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and the unrecognized minorities such as the Baha'is all face forms of discrimination and possible persecution in certain circumstances. It is a continuing problem that needs to be addressed.

In terms of the ethnic minorities issue, I only want to say here that the broad discrimination includes not just simple political repression, but also discrimination in terms of access to education, access to government services, living conditions, poor housing, etc. The actual discrimination covers the whole gamut of human rights concerns.

On violations of human rights of women, the women's rights sector is one where there has been some progress, in terms of women actively seeking improvements in their rights over the last few years. Unfortunately, there has been a retreat with the current president, but women still struggle and fight for their rights. It's an important area for Amnesty, and I think it should be an important area for the Canadian government to do whatever it can to support the activists on the ground and encourage Iran to abide by its obligations internationally. We have to recognize at the same time that many activists who do leave Iran and speak out on the situation face, upon return, the danger of being arrested or restricted in terms of travel. These are steps that have been taken by the Iranian authorities.

I want to touch very briefly on the arrest of relatives of the members of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. I think many committee members have been approached from the Iranian community here in Canada about members who had been in Camp Ashraf. In January of this year, members of their families in Iran, mostly elderly women between the ages of 60 and 85, had attempted to leave Iran to visit their families in Iraq. They were detained, arrested, and are currently being held in prison. This is a continuation of the threat. I know cases of potential refugees, of individuals who have had an association with the People's Mojahedin and who are seeking refugee status in Canada. It remains a concern for Amnesty. Not every individual who applies for refugee status from Iran would be at risk, but it's clear at this moment that the situation is worsening, and great care has to be taken in these cases.

That's my presentation.

In terms of the recommendations, I don't need to go there; I would just re-emphasize those made by Mr. Stork.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rimstad.

Thanks to all of our witnesses.

Before turning to questions, I want to go through a couple of additional housekeeping items. My logic for doing so now is that, as often happens, we may find ourselves pressed right to the wall on questions. I don't want to have to interrupt with administrative matters at that time.

Thursday's meeting will be a one-hour meeting, not an hour and a half, because we have no witnesses. I propose we review the witness list and try to give a bit of structure for folks about what's coming. That will provide an opportunity for Mr. Marston's motion to be dealt with by the committee.

I also want to mention that we received presentations from Mr. Rimstad and Mr. Stork. Mr. Stork's has been distributed. Mr. Rimstad's is being translated and will be distributed. Hopefully you'll have it by Thursday. We apologize for that, but our rules preclude doing anything otherwise.

Third, I want to mention Tarek Hassan and say that he's very welcome here. On a more personal level, Tarek is an old friend of mine. We were saying earlier that we go back to the mid-1980s, when we were both students at Carleton University. Of course, you know all the wonderful associations that go along with being a student and graduate of Carleton University. I need say no more.

Finally, I turn to the matter of time limits. Rather than the usual seven-minute round followed by five-minute rounds, we have enough time for every member of the committee to get a seven-minute spot. I suggest we do that in our order, which is Liberal, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. That will give everybody seven minutes.

I now invite one of the Liberal MPs to start.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to express appreciation to the three witnesses for their comprehensive coverage in the allotted time. That was not an easy thing to do, but it was done very effectively.

My first question might go primarily to Mr. Stork, but it could be answered by others. He spoke especially about this, although he was joined by others.

Given the exclusion of international monitoring and mechanisms, be it by the United Nations or international human rights NGOs like Human Rights Watch, are there any effective mechanisms within Iran to address, expose, or possibly remedy violations of international human rights? Is there any possibility for some measure of public awareness to be created that would address using such institutions as the judiciary, civil society groups, women's groups, academics, or the media and the like within Iran?